George Michaelson <g...@algebras.org> writes: > How can it go WGLC with section 6 an open question?
Well, the plan is to not allow it per the original EDNS0 spec. We should have said that in the section and said "going once...." or something. IE, the plan is to disallow sending it back unless the source indicates support. [In theory, it should be possible to always include it because of the "ignore additional you don't understand" rule] > I would like to understand if we could work out a way to do traceroute > in the codes, with some defined code to ask the DNS resolver to > perform a TTL drop on a counter and mark itself into the chain, which > would help uncover resolver chains. That's an interesting idea! (not for this draft though right? Seems overreaching for this one) > With IANA registry requests, I may be wrong here, but I thought we had > some (boilerplate?) language about how IANA is asked to operate the > registry: what criteria judge acceptance. Is it like the OID and > basically open (hair oil) slather, or is it only at WG RFC documented > request? If there is a better template, we'd certainly like to hear it. -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
